临床推理能力在AAC干预计划中的作用:专家-新手差距的调查

IF 0.4 Q4 AUDIOLOGY & SPEECH-LANGUAGE PATHOLOGY Communication Sciences and Disorders-CSD Pub Date : 2020-01-01 DOI:10.30707/TLCSD4.2/XNDO8764
Allison M. Sauerwein, Jane R. Wegner
{"title":"临床推理能力在AAC干预计划中的作用:专家-新手差距的调查","authors":"Allison M. Sauerwein, Jane R. Wegner","doi":"10.30707/TLCSD4.2/XNDO8764","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Clinical reasoning skills underlie the decisions speech-language pathologists (SLPs) make during practice. Although clinical reasoning is included in speech-language pathology accreditation standards in the United States, there is limited research on preservice SLPs’ development or use of clinical reasoning skills. Because clinical reasoning skills specific to augmentative and alternative communication (AAC) service provision have not been identified or reported in depth, this qualitative study focused on two cases of children with developmental disabilities who used AAC systems. Eight novice (i.e. preservice) SLPs and eight expert SLPs completed think-aloud tasks while they developed intervention plans, which made their clinical reasoning skills observable. Responses were transcribed for qualitative analysis. Six clinical reasoning skills were identified: summarizing, interpreting, hypothesizing, rationalizing, comparing and deferring. Expert and novices used four of these clinical reasoning skills similarly; however, there were differences among the remaining two skills. Novices deferred more frequently during the tasks and were limited in their ability to make comparisons to the fictional cases as compared to the experts. The expert-novice gap in clinical reasoning presents implications for teaching preservice SLPs in the classroom and the clinic.","PeriodicalId":45124,"journal":{"name":"Communication Sciences and Disorders-CSD","volume":"41 1","pages":"7"},"PeriodicalIF":0.4000,"publicationDate":"2020-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"2","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Clinical Reasoning Skills in AAC Intervention Planning: Investigating the Expert-Novice Gap\",\"authors\":\"Allison M. Sauerwein, Jane R. Wegner\",\"doi\":\"10.30707/TLCSD4.2/XNDO8764\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Clinical reasoning skills underlie the decisions speech-language pathologists (SLPs) make during practice. Although clinical reasoning is included in speech-language pathology accreditation standards in the United States, there is limited research on preservice SLPs’ development or use of clinical reasoning skills. Because clinical reasoning skills specific to augmentative and alternative communication (AAC) service provision have not been identified or reported in depth, this qualitative study focused on two cases of children with developmental disabilities who used AAC systems. Eight novice (i.e. preservice) SLPs and eight expert SLPs completed think-aloud tasks while they developed intervention plans, which made their clinical reasoning skills observable. Responses were transcribed for qualitative analysis. Six clinical reasoning skills were identified: summarizing, interpreting, hypothesizing, rationalizing, comparing and deferring. Expert and novices used four of these clinical reasoning skills similarly; however, there were differences among the remaining two skills. Novices deferred more frequently during the tasks and were limited in their ability to make comparisons to the fictional cases as compared to the experts. The expert-novice gap in clinical reasoning presents implications for teaching preservice SLPs in the classroom and the clinic.\",\"PeriodicalId\":45124,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Communication Sciences and Disorders-CSD\",\"volume\":\"41 1\",\"pages\":\"7\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2020-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"2\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Communication Sciences and Disorders-CSD\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.30707/TLCSD4.2/XNDO8764\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"AUDIOLOGY & SPEECH-LANGUAGE PATHOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Communication Sciences and Disorders-CSD","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.30707/TLCSD4.2/XNDO8764","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"AUDIOLOGY & SPEECH-LANGUAGE PATHOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

摘要

临床推理技能是语言病理学家(slp)在实践中做出决定的基础。虽然临床推理被包括在美国的语言病理学认证标准中,但对在职slp发展或使用临床推理技能的研究有限。由于辅助和替代沟通(AAC)服务提供的临床推理技能尚未被确定或深入报道,因此本定性研究侧重于两个使用AAC系统的发育障碍儿童。8名初级(即职前)slp和8名专家级slp在制定干预计划的同时完成了有声思考任务,临床推理能力显著提高。将应答记录下来进行定性分析。六种临床推理技能:总结、解释、假设、合理化、比较和推迟。专家和新手使用其中四种临床推理技能的方式相似;然而,其余两种技能之间存在差异。与专家相比,新手在任务中更频繁地拖延,并且在与虚构案例进行比较的能力上受到限制。临床推理的专家-新手差距提出了在课堂和临床教学职前slp的影响。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Clinical Reasoning Skills in AAC Intervention Planning: Investigating the Expert-Novice Gap
Clinical reasoning skills underlie the decisions speech-language pathologists (SLPs) make during practice. Although clinical reasoning is included in speech-language pathology accreditation standards in the United States, there is limited research on preservice SLPs’ development or use of clinical reasoning skills. Because clinical reasoning skills specific to augmentative and alternative communication (AAC) service provision have not been identified or reported in depth, this qualitative study focused on two cases of children with developmental disabilities who used AAC systems. Eight novice (i.e. preservice) SLPs and eight expert SLPs completed think-aloud tasks while they developed intervention plans, which made their clinical reasoning skills observable. Responses were transcribed for qualitative analysis. Six clinical reasoning skills were identified: summarizing, interpreting, hypothesizing, rationalizing, comparing and deferring. Expert and novices used four of these clinical reasoning skills similarly; however, there were differences among the remaining two skills. Novices deferred more frequently during the tasks and were limited in their ability to make comparisons to the fictional cases as compared to the experts. The expert-novice gap in clinical reasoning presents implications for teaching preservice SLPs in the classroom and the clinic.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Communication Sciences and Disorders-CSD
Communication Sciences and Disorders-CSD AUDIOLOGY & SPEECH-LANGUAGE PATHOLOGY-
CiteScore
0.90
自引率
80.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
The Relationship among Cognition, Receptive Vocabulary and Speech Production Skills in Children with Cerebral Palsy A Meta-analysis Study on the Communication Attitudes of People Who Do and Do Not Stutter by Age Speech Intelligibility Improvement with Concrete and Abstract Auditory Cues Verbal Imitation in 1 to 2-Year-Old Children Survey on Communication Needs and Functions of Adults Using Personal Assistance Services
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1